#platformgovernance — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #platformgovernance, aggregated by home.social.
-
Is This Chaos Accidental?
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — July 18, 2026
Asking the Uncomfortable Question
At some point, prolonged disorder stops looking like incompetence and starts looking like intent.
That is the question this essay confronts, cautiously but directly: is TikTok’s chaos simply the result of scale and poor governance, or is it the byproduct of a deeper internal philosophy that treats user confusion as a feature rather than a flaw?
This is not an accusation. It is an analytical question that arises naturally when systems behave consistently badly over time.
Chaos, Consistently Applied
TikTok’s terms of service and community guidelines exist on paper. In practice, they behave more like suggestions than rules.
Enforcement is:
- Inconsistent across regions
- Opaque to users
- Poorly explained when action is taken
- Largely immune to appeal
The result is not merely frustration. It is disorientation. Users do not learn what behavior is acceptable. They learn only that outcomes are unpredictable.
That unpredictability has persisted long enough to raise a serious question: what if that confusion is the point?
Ridicule as a Systemic Byproduct
One possible interpretation — uncomfortable but increasingly difficult to dismiss — is that the platform’s internal culture may be quietly contemptuous of how the general public uses social media.
Not hostile. Not openly adversarial. Simply dismissive.
Under this interpretation, chaos functions as a kind of ridicule. Users are trained to dance for visibility, guess at invisible rules, and accept penalties without explanation. The more people scramble, the more engagement is generated. The more engagement is generated, the more the system is justified internally.
From the inside, this may look clever. From the outside, it looks exploitative.
The Hacker-Origin Hypothesis
There is another question that follows naturally from this pattern.
Is it possible that TikTok’s architecture reflects the mindset of a hacker collective that successfully monetized its skills — building a legitimate revenue machine while retaining an internal culture that delights in gaming, destabilizing, and outmaneuvering its own users?
Again, this is not an allegation. It is a hypothesis prompted by behavior.
Systems reflect the values of the people who design them. When a platform repeatedly privileges confusion over clarity, leverage over trust, and engagement over governance, it is reasonable to ask what worldview shaped those decisions.
Learning From What Others Get Away With
There is also a more mundane explanation, and it is not mutually exclusive.
TikTok may simply be watching what other major platforms have normalized — learning that weak enforcement, vague rules, and performative accountability carry little real consequence.
If regulatory capture and public fatigue allow large platforms to behave this way, the lesson is obvious: if they can do it, so can we.
That logic does not require malice. It only requires indifference to downstream harm.
Why This Question Matters
Whether TikTok’s chaos stems from cultural contempt, inherited norms, or strategic cynicism is ultimately less important than the outcome.
The outcome is the same:
- Users absorb risk without clarity
- Creators operate under constant uncertainty
- Sellers are asked to transact on shifting ground
A platform that ridicules its users — even implicitly — cannot be trusted with commerce, governance, or long-term social influence.
And yet TikTok continues to expand its reach and its ambitions without resolving these foundational contradictions.
Holding the Question Open
This essay does not close the case. It opens it.
Future entries in this series will continue to document behavior, not speculate wildly about motives. But it is important to name the question plainly now, before the evidence piles higher:
Is TikTok’s disorder an accident — or is it an expression of how its architects actually view the people who rely on it?
If that question feels uncomfortable, it should.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
#communityGuidelines #digitalEthics #platformGovernance #socialMediaAccountability #termsOfService #TikTok -
Is This Chaos Accidental?
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — July 18, 2026
Asking the Uncomfortable Question
At some point, prolonged disorder stops looking like incompetence and starts looking like intent.
That is the question this essay confronts, cautiously but directly: is TikTok’s chaos simply the result of scale and poor governance, or is it the byproduct of a deeper internal philosophy that treats user confusion as a feature rather than a flaw?
This is not an accusation. It is an analytical question that arises naturally when systems behave consistently badly over time.
Chaos, Consistently Applied
TikTok’s terms of service and community guidelines exist on paper. In practice, they behave more like suggestions than rules.
Enforcement is:
- Inconsistent across regions
- Opaque to users
- Poorly explained when action is taken
- Largely immune to appeal
The result is not merely frustration. It is disorientation. Users do not learn what behavior is acceptable. They learn only that outcomes are unpredictable.
That unpredictability has persisted long enough to raise a serious question: what if that confusion is the point?
Ridicule as a Systemic Byproduct
One possible interpretation — uncomfortable but increasingly difficult to dismiss — is that the platform’s internal culture may be quietly contemptuous of how the general public uses social media.
Not hostile. Not openly adversarial. Simply dismissive.
Under this interpretation, chaos functions as a kind of ridicule. Users are trained to dance for visibility, guess at invisible rules, and accept penalties without explanation. The more people scramble, the more engagement is generated. The more engagement is generated, the more the system is justified internally.
From the inside, this may look clever. From the outside, it looks exploitative.
The Hacker-Origin Hypothesis
There is another question that follows naturally from this pattern.
Is it possible that TikTok’s architecture reflects the mindset of a hacker collective that successfully monetized its skills — building a legitimate revenue machine while retaining an internal culture that delights in gaming, destabilizing, and outmaneuvering its own users?
Again, this is not an allegation. It is a hypothesis prompted by behavior.
Systems reflect the values of the people who design them. When a platform repeatedly privileges confusion over clarity, leverage over trust, and engagement over governance, it is reasonable to ask what worldview shaped those decisions.
Learning From What Others Get Away With
There is also a more mundane explanation, and it is not mutually exclusive.
TikTok may simply be watching what other major platforms have normalized — learning that weak enforcement, vague rules, and performative accountability carry little real consequence.
If regulatory capture and public fatigue allow large platforms to behave this way, the lesson is obvious: if they can do it, so can we.
That logic does not require malice. It only requires indifference to downstream harm.
Why This Question Matters
Whether TikTok’s chaos stems from cultural contempt, inherited norms, or strategic cynicism is ultimately less important than the outcome.
The outcome is the same:
- Users absorb risk without clarity
- Creators operate under constant uncertainty
- Sellers are asked to transact on shifting ground
A platform that ridicules its users — even implicitly — cannot be trusted with commerce, governance, or long-term social influence.
And yet TikTok continues to expand its reach and its ambitions without resolving these foundational contradictions.
Holding the Question Open
This essay does not close the case. It opens it.
Future entries in this series will continue to document behavior, not speculate wildly about motives. But it is important to name the question plainly now, before the evidence piles higher:
Is TikTok’s disorder an accident — or is it an expression of how its architects actually view the people who rely on it?
If that question feels uncomfortable, it should.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
#communityGuidelines #digitalEthics #platformGovernance #socialMediaAccountability #termsOfService #TikTok -
GORE WEBSITES AS CONTENT INFRASTRUCTURE
This VOX-Pol repoprt analyses 24 surface-web gore sites with unrestricted access, weak public policies, and share/download features.
The report does not claim gore exposure causes extremism. It shows how terrorist material, violent misogyny, war footage and extreme pornography can circulate through the same accessible infrastructure.
Read:
https://voxpol.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/DCUPN0751-Gore-Extremism-WEB-250704.pdf -
Moderation Without Memory
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — July 2, 2026
Enforcement That Forgets Itself
One of the most damaging features of TikTok’s governance is not simply inconsistency. It is amnesia.
Moderation on TikTok does not appear to accumulate institutional memory. Each enforcement action behaves as if it exists in isolation, disconnected from prior decisions, patterns, or context. Users are not judged by stable standards. They are judged by moments.
This matters, because systems without memory cannot be fair. They can only be reactive.
Rules Without Precedent
In mature regulatory systems, precedent matters. Past decisions inform future ones. Patterns are recognized. Errors are corrected. Standards evolve visibly.
On TikTok, enforcement offers none of that continuity.
Creators routinely encounter:
- Content removed for reasons that contradict earlier approvals
- Penalties applied to one account but ignored on another for identical material
- No explanation of how prior compliance is weighed
- No visible record of how decisions are made over time
Without precedent, users cannot learn. Without learning, compliance becomes guesswork.
This is not merely frustrating. It is destabilizing (Gillespie, 2018).
Automation Without Accountability
Much of TikTok’s moderation appears to be automated or semi-automated, with minimal human review. Automation at scale is unavoidable. Unaccountable automation is not.
When automated systems operate without transparency or institutional memory, they amplify randomness. They do not enforce norms. They generate noise (Pasquale, 2015).
Appeals rarely correct this problem. They are often handled by the same systems that generated the original action, producing circular outcomes that feel less like review and more like confirmation.
A system cannot meaningfully review itself if it does not remember what it has done before.
The Human Cost of Forgetfulness
Moderation without memory changes how people behave.
Creators stop building archives. Sellers hesitate to invest in durable content. Users learn that nothing on the platform is permanent—not because of creative impermanence, but because governance itself is unstable.
This produces a short-term culture:
- Trends over substance
- Virality over reliability
- Disposable content over durable work
That culture may inflate engagement metrics. It erodes trust.
Why Memory Matters for Commerce
Commerce depends on continuity.
Sellers need to know that past compliance reduces future risk. Consumers need confidence that legitimate vendors will not vanish without explanation. Platforms facilitating transactions must be able to explain why one action occurred today and how it relates to yesterday.
A moderation system that forgets itself cannot do that.
This is not a minor flaw. It is a structural incompatibility between TikTok’s governance model and the requirements of serious commerce (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).
The Pattern, Not the Incident
This essay is not about a single takedown or a single mistake. It is about recognizing a recurring condition.
A platform that cannot remember its own decisions cannot be trusted to resolve disputes, protect participants, or enforce standards consistently. Over time, that failure becomes indistinguishable from indifference.
TikTok’s moderation system does not merely forget users. It forgets itself.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
APA Citations:
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
#algorithmicEnforcement #contentModeration #digitalCommerce #platformGovernance #socialMediaAccountability #TikTok -
Moderation Without Memory
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — July 2, 2026
Enforcement That Forgets Itself
One of the most damaging features of TikTok’s governance is not simply inconsistency. It is amnesia.
Moderation on TikTok does not appear to accumulate institutional memory. Each enforcement action behaves as if it exists in isolation, disconnected from prior decisions, patterns, or context. Users are not judged by stable standards. They are judged by moments.
This matters, because systems without memory cannot be fair. They can only be reactive.
Rules Without Precedent
In mature regulatory systems, precedent matters. Past decisions inform future ones. Patterns are recognized. Errors are corrected. Standards evolve visibly.
On TikTok, enforcement offers none of that continuity.
Creators routinely encounter:
- Content removed for reasons that contradict earlier approvals
- Penalties applied to one account but ignored on another for identical material
- No explanation of how prior compliance is weighed
- No visible record of how decisions are made over time
Without precedent, users cannot learn. Without learning, compliance becomes guesswork.
This is not merely frustrating. It is destabilizing (Gillespie, 2018).
Automation Without Accountability
Much of TikTok’s moderation appears to be automated or semi-automated, with minimal human review. Automation at scale is unavoidable. Unaccountable automation is not.
When automated systems operate without transparency or institutional memory, they amplify randomness. They do not enforce norms. They generate noise (Pasquale, 2015).
Appeals rarely correct this problem. They are often handled by the same systems that generated the original action, producing circular outcomes that feel less like review and more like confirmation.
A system cannot meaningfully review itself if it does not remember what it has done before.
The Human Cost of Forgetfulness
Moderation without memory changes how people behave.
Creators stop building archives. Sellers hesitate to invest in durable content. Users learn that nothing on the platform is permanent—not because of creative impermanence, but because governance itself is unstable.
This produces a short-term culture:
- Trends over substance
- Virality over reliability
- Disposable content over durable work
That culture may inflate engagement metrics. It erodes trust.
Why Memory Matters for Commerce
Commerce depends on continuity.
Sellers need to know that past compliance reduces future risk. Consumers need confidence that legitimate vendors will not vanish without explanation. Platforms facilitating transactions must be able to explain why one action occurred today and how it relates to yesterday.
A moderation system that forgets itself cannot do that.
This is not a minor flaw. It is a structural incompatibility between TikTok’s governance model and the requirements of serious commerce (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).
The Pattern, Not the Incident
This essay is not about a single takedown or a single mistake. It is about recognizing a recurring condition.
A platform that cannot remember its own decisions cannot be trusted to resolve disputes, protect participants, or enforce standards consistently. Over time, that failure becomes indistinguishable from indifference.
TikTok’s moderation system does not merely forget users. It forgets itself.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
APA Citations:
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
#algorithmicEnforcement #contentModeration #digitalCommerce #platformGovernance #socialMediaAccountability #TikTok -
When Rules Mean Whatever They Want
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — May 7, 2026
Governance by Temper Tantrum
At a certain point, the behavior of a system becomes so erratic that technical explanations stop being useful.
The only analogy that fits TikTok’s management style at scale is this: an ill-behaved fourteen-year-old who just had his Xbox taken away, locked in a room with the one thing he still controls — the platform — and determined to use it to punish, mock, and toy with everyone else.
That may sound flippant. It isn’t.
Because when governance becomes reactive, punitive, and arbitrary, the problem is no longer incompetence. It is immaturity.
Acting Out as a Control Strategy
Mature systems behave predictably. Immature ones act out.
On TikTok, enforcement does not feel reasoned or corrective. It feels emotional. Sudden. Spiteful. As if the platform itself is responding to perceived slights rather than applying policy.
Creators wake up throttled. Sellers lose visibility without warning. Content is removed with boilerplate explanations that explain nothing. Appeals are ignored or answered by automation that clearly does not understand the question being asked.
This is not discipline. It is lashing out.
Punishment as Entertainment
There is an unmistakable undertone to how penalties are applied: not merely corrective, but performative.
People are not just penalized. They are humiliated through silence. Through disappearance. Through unexplained loss of reach. Through the quiet implication that you must have done something wrong, even when no one can say what that was.
That dynamic mirrors troll culture precisely.
Confusion is the joke. Scrambling is the joke. Watching people guess at invisible rules is the joke.
A Sanitized Troll Board With Ad Revenue
Viewed through this lens, TikTok starts to resemble something uncomfortably familiar: a cleaned-up, advertiser-friendly version of an old troll forum.
Not as overt. Not as explicit. But driven by the same underlying pleasure in disruption.
The system rewards chaos. It punishes stability. It amplifies nonsense while smothering consistency. It treats seriousness as a liability and volatility as fuel.
It is what happens when troll logic is given a revenue model and a global audience.
Why This Matters for Commerce
Troll systems are incompatible with commerce.
Serious businesses cannot operate on a platform where enforcement feels like mood swings. Sellers cannot invest time, inventory, or reputation into an ecosystem that behaves as though it enjoys pulling the rug out from under participants.
Commerce requires adulthood:
- Clear rules
- Consistent enforcement
- Transparent correction
- Predictable outcomes
What TikTok offers instead is impulse and spectacle.
The Problem Is Not Tone — It’s Power
This is not about being offended by style. It is about recognizing risk.
When a platform with massive influence behaves like an adolescent with unchecked authority, the danger is not embarrassment. It is harm.
Users adapt by self-censoring, fragmenting, or leaving quietly. Sellers absorb losses without recourse. Consumers lose trust without ever being told why.
And TikTok continues forward as if this is all normal.
Calling It What It Is
Maturity in governance is not optional once power reaches a certain scale.
When rules mean whatever the platform feels like enforcing that day, governance has failed. When punishment feels mocking rather than corrective, legitimacy is already gone.
This essay does not accuse TikTok of malice. It accuses it of childishness — and of wielding enormous power without the restraint that power requires.
That may be worse.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
#contentModeration #digitalEthics #platformGovernance #socialMediaRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
When Rules Mean Whatever They Want
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — May 7, 2026
Governance by Temper Tantrum
At a certain point, the behavior of a system becomes so erratic that technical explanations stop being useful.
The only analogy that fits TikTok’s management style at scale is this: an ill-behaved fourteen-year-old who just had his Xbox taken away, locked in a room with the one thing he still controls — the platform — and determined to use it to punish, mock, and toy with everyone else.
That may sound flippant. It isn’t.
Because when governance becomes reactive, punitive, and arbitrary, the problem is no longer incompetence. It is immaturity.
Acting Out as a Control Strategy
Mature systems behave predictably. Immature ones act out.
On TikTok, enforcement does not feel reasoned or corrective. It feels emotional. Sudden. Spiteful. As if the platform itself is responding to perceived slights rather than applying policy.
Creators wake up throttled. Sellers lose visibility without warning. Content is removed with boilerplate explanations that explain nothing. Appeals are ignored or answered by automation that clearly does not understand the question being asked.
This is not discipline. It is lashing out.
Punishment as Entertainment
There is an unmistakable undertone to how penalties are applied: not merely corrective, but performative.
People are not just penalized. They are humiliated through silence. Through disappearance. Through unexplained loss of reach. Through the quiet implication that you must have done something wrong, even when no one can say what that was.
That dynamic mirrors troll culture precisely.
Confusion is the joke. Scrambling is the joke. Watching people guess at invisible rules is the joke.
A Sanitized Troll Board With Ad Revenue
Viewed through this lens, TikTok starts to resemble something uncomfortably familiar: a cleaned-up, advertiser-friendly version of an old troll forum.
Not as overt. Not as explicit. But driven by the same underlying pleasure in disruption.
The system rewards chaos. It punishes stability. It amplifies nonsense while smothering consistency. It treats seriousness as a liability and volatility as fuel.
It is what happens when troll logic is given a revenue model and a global audience.
Why This Matters for Commerce
Troll systems are incompatible with commerce.
Serious businesses cannot operate on a platform where enforcement feels like mood swings. Sellers cannot invest time, inventory, or reputation into an ecosystem that behaves as though it enjoys pulling the rug out from under participants.
Commerce requires adulthood:
- Clear rules
- Consistent enforcement
- Transparent correction
- Predictable outcomes
What TikTok offers instead is impulse and spectacle.
The Problem Is Not Tone — It’s Power
This is not about being offended by style. It is about recognizing risk.
When a platform with massive influence behaves like an adolescent with unchecked authority, the danger is not embarrassment. It is harm.
Users adapt by self-censoring, fragmenting, or leaving quietly. Sellers absorb losses without recourse. Consumers lose trust without ever being told why.
And TikTok continues forward as if this is all normal.
Calling It What It Is
Maturity in governance is not optional once power reaches a certain scale.
When rules mean whatever the platform feels like enforcing that day, governance has failed. When punishment feels mocking rather than corrective, legitimacy is already gone.
This essay does not accuse TikTok of malice. It accuses it of childishness — and of wielding enormous power without the restraint that power requires.
That may be worse.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
#contentModeration #digitalEthics #platformGovernance #socialMediaRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
When Rules Mean Whatever They Want
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — May 7, 2026
Governance by Temper Tantrum
At a certain point, the behavior of a system becomes so erratic that technical explanations stop being useful.
The only analogy that fits TikTok’s management style at scale is this: an ill-behaved fourteen-year-old who just had his Xbox taken away, locked in a room with the one thing he still controls — the platform — and determined to use it to punish, mock, and toy with everyone else.
That may sound flippant. It isn’t.
Because when governance becomes reactive, punitive, and arbitrary, the problem is no longer incompetence. It is immaturity.
Acting Out as a Control Strategy
Mature systems behave predictably. Immature ones act out.
On TikTok, enforcement does not feel reasoned or corrective. It feels emotional. Sudden. Spiteful. As if the platform itself is responding to perceived slights rather than applying policy.
Creators wake up throttled. Sellers lose visibility without warning. Content is removed with boilerplate explanations that explain nothing. Appeals are ignored or answered by automation that clearly does not understand the question being asked.
This is not discipline. It is lashing out.
Punishment as Entertainment
There is an unmistakable undertone to how penalties are applied: not merely corrective, but performative.
People are not just penalized. They are humiliated through silence. Through disappearance. Through unexplained loss of reach. Through the quiet implication that you must have done something wrong, even when no one can say what that was.
That dynamic mirrors troll culture precisely.
Confusion is the joke. Scrambling is the joke. Watching people guess at invisible rules is the joke.
A Sanitized Troll Board With Ad Revenue
Viewed through this lens, TikTok starts to resemble something uncomfortably familiar: a cleaned-up, advertiser-friendly version of an old troll forum.
Not as overt. Not as explicit. But driven by the same underlying pleasure in disruption.
The system rewards chaos. It punishes stability. It amplifies nonsense while smothering consistency. It treats seriousness as a liability and volatility as fuel.
It is what happens when troll logic is given a revenue model and a global audience.
Why This Matters for Commerce
Troll systems are incompatible with commerce.
Serious businesses cannot operate on a platform where enforcement feels like mood swings. Sellers cannot invest time, inventory, or reputation into an ecosystem that behaves as though it enjoys pulling the rug out from under participants.
Commerce requires adulthood:
- Clear rules
- Consistent enforcement
- Transparent correction
- Predictable outcomes
What TikTok offers instead is impulse and spectacle.
The Problem Is Not Tone — It’s Power
This is not about being offended by style. It is about recognizing risk.
When a platform with massive influence behaves like an adolescent with unchecked authority, the danger is not embarrassment. It is harm.
Users adapt by self-censoring, fragmenting, or leaving quietly. Sellers absorb losses without recourse. Consumers lose trust without ever being told why.
And TikTok continues forward as if this is all normal.
Calling It What It Is
Maturity in governance is not optional once power reaches a certain scale.
When rules mean whatever the platform feels like enforcing that day, governance has failed. When punishment feels mocking rather than corrective, legitimacy is already gone.
This essay does not accuse TikTok of malice. It accuses it of childishness — and of wielding enormous power without the restraint that power requires.
That may be worse.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
#contentModeration #digitalEthics #platformGovernance #socialMediaRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
When Rules Mean Whatever They Want
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — May 7, 2026
Governance by Temper Tantrum
At a certain point, the behavior of a system becomes so erratic that technical explanations stop being useful.
The only analogy that fits TikTok’s management style at scale is this: an ill-behaved fourteen-year-old who just had his Xbox taken away, locked in a room with the one thing he still controls — the platform — and determined to use it to punish, mock, and toy with everyone else.
That may sound flippant. It isn’t.
Because when governance becomes reactive, punitive, and arbitrary, the problem is no longer incompetence. It is immaturity.
Acting Out as a Control Strategy
Mature systems behave predictably. Immature ones act out.
On TikTok, enforcement does not feel reasoned or corrective. It feels emotional. Sudden. Spiteful. As if the platform itself is responding to perceived slights rather than applying policy.
Creators wake up throttled. Sellers lose visibility without warning. Content is removed with boilerplate explanations that explain nothing. Appeals are ignored or answered by automation that clearly does not understand the question being asked.
This is not discipline. It is lashing out.
Punishment as Entertainment
There is an unmistakable undertone to how penalties are applied: not merely corrective, but performative.
People are not just penalized. They are humiliated through silence. Through disappearance. Through unexplained loss of reach. Through the quiet implication that you must have done something wrong, even when no one can say what that was.
That dynamic mirrors troll culture precisely.
Confusion is the joke. Scrambling is the joke. Watching people guess at invisible rules is the joke.
A Sanitized Troll Board With Ad Revenue
Viewed through this lens, TikTok starts to resemble something uncomfortably familiar: a cleaned-up, advertiser-friendly version of an old troll forum.
Not as overt. Not as explicit. But driven by the same underlying pleasure in disruption.
The system rewards chaos. It punishes stability. It amplifies nonsense while smothering consistency. It treats seriousness as a liability and volatility as fuel.
It is what happens when troll logic is given a revenue model and a global audience.
Why This Matters for Commerce
Troll systems are incompatible with commerce.
Serious businesses cannot operate on a platform where enforcement feels like mood swings. Sellers cannot invest time, inventory, or reputation into an ecosystem that behaves as though it enjoys pulling the rug out from under participants.
Commerce requires adulthood:
- Clear rules
- Consistent enforcement
- Transparent correction
- Predictable outcomes
What TikTok offers instead is impulse and spectacle.
The Problem Is Not Tone — It’s Power
This is not about being offended by style. It is about recognizing risk.
When a platform with massive influence behaves like an adolescent with unchecked authority, the danger is not embarrassment. It is harm.
Users adapt by self-censoring, fragmenting, or leaving quietly. Sellers absorb losses without recourse. Consumers lose trust without ever being told why.
And TikTok continues forward as if this is all normal.
Calling It What It Is
Maturity in governance is not optional once power reaches a certain scale.
When rules mean whatever the platform feels like enforcing that day, governance has failed. When punishment feels mocking rather than corrective, legitimacy is already gone.
This essay does not accuse TikTok of malice. It accuses it of childishness — and of wielding enormous power without the restraint that power requires.
That may be worse.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
#contentModeration #digitalEthics #platformGovernance #socialMediaRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
When Rules Mean Whatever They Want
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — May 7, 2026
Governance by Temper Tantrum
At a certain point, the behavior of a system becomes so erratic that technical explanations stop being useful.
The only analogy that fits TikTok’s management style at scale is this: an ill-behaved fourteen-year-old who just had his Xbox taken away, locked in a room with the one thing he still controls — the platform — and determined to use it to punish, mock, and toy with everyone else.
That may sound flippant. It isn’t.
Because when governance becomes reactive, punitive, and arbitrary, the problem is no longer incompetence. It is immaturity.
Acting Out as a Control Strategy
Mature systems behave predictably. Immature ones act out.
On TikTok, enforcement does not feel reasoned or corrective. It feels emotional. Sudden. Spiteful. As if the platform itself is responding to perceived slights rather than applying policy.
Creators wake up throttled. Sellers lose visibility without warning. Content is removed with boilerplate explanations that explain nothing. Appeals are ignored or answered by automation that clearly does not understand the question being asked.
This is not discipline. It is lashing out.
Punishment as Entertainment
There is an unmistakable undertone to how penalties are applied: not merely corrective, but performative.
People are not just penalized. They are humiliated through silence. Through disappearance. Through unexplained loss of reach. Through the quiet implication that you must have done something wrong, even when no one can say what that was.
That dynamic mirrors troll culture precisely.
Confusion is the joke. Scrambling is the joke. Watching people guess at invisible rules is the joke.
A Sanitized Troll Board With Ad Revenue
Viewed through this lens, TikTok starts to resemble something uncomfortably familiar: a cleaned-up, advertiser-friendly version of an old troll forum.
Not as overt. Not as explicit. But driven by the same underlying pleasure in disruption.
The system rewards chaos. It punishes stability. It amplifies nonsense while smothering consistency. It treats seriousness as a liability and volatility as fuel.
It is what happens when troll logic is given a revenue model and a global audience.
Why This Matters for Commerce
Troll systems are incompatible with commerce.
Serious businesses cannot operate on a platform where enforcement feels like mood swings. Sellers cannot invest time, inventory, or reputation into an ecosystem that behaves as though it enjoys pulling the rug out from under participants.
Commerce requires adulthood:
- Clear rules
- Consistent enforcement
- Transparent correction
- Predictable outcomes
What TikTok offers instead is impulse and spectacle.
The Problem Is Not Tone — It’s Power
This is not about being offended by style. It is about recognizing risk.
When a platform with massive influence behaves like an adolescent with unchecked authority, the danger is not embarrassment. It is harm.
Users adapt by self-censoring, fragmenting, or leaving quietly. Sellers absorb losses without recourse. Consumers lose trust without ever being told why.
And TikTok continues forward as if this is all normal.
Calling It What It Is
Maturity in governance is not optional once power reaches a certain scale.
When rules mean whatever the platform feels like enforcing that day, governance has failed. When punishment feels mocking rather than corrective, legitimacy is already gone.
This essay does not accuse TikTok of malice. It accuses it of childishness — and of wielding enormous power without the restraint that power requires.
That may be worse.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
#contentModeration #digitalEthics #platformGovernance #socialMediaRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
What Bluesky Got Right: Community Norms
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — May 6, 2026
Most large social platforms attempt to impose culture from the top down. They publish guidelines, issue periodic statements, and rely on enforcement teams to define what behavior is acceptable. The result is usually brittle: rules without trust, compliance without buy-in, and communities that feel managed rather than inhabited.
When Bluesky allowed community norms to develop organically, it took a different approach. Instead of dictating tone, it created conditions where users could negotiate expectations among themselves. That decision produced something rare online: a culture people actually respected.
Rules Do Not Create Culture
Formal rules can stop the worst behavior, but they cannot produce healthy interaction on their own. Culture emerges from repeated signals about what is rewarded, what is ignored, and what quietly fails.
On platforms driven by engagement metrics, the loudest behavior becomes the norm. Even when it violates stated rules, it spreads because it performs well. Users learn quickly which behavior is tolerated in practice, regardless of what policy pages claim.
Bluesky reduced that gap. Its design choices aligned incentives with restraint rather than escalation, allowing norms to form through lived experience instead of enforcement theater.
Norms Formed Through Friction, Not Decrees
Bluesky did not demand politeness or enforce artificial civility. It allowed disagreement, sarcasm, and conflict. What it removed were the tools that turn minor conflicts into spectacles.
Without algorithmic amplification or quote-dunking, users encountered one another at a human scale. Poor behavior did not disappear, but it stopped being rewarded. Over time, communities learned what worked.
People adjusted.
Tone stabilized.
Expectations became legible.That process cannot be faked.
Boundary Respect Became Normal
Because blocking was normalized and harassment did not scale easily, users learned to respect boundaries. Access was no longer assumed. If someone crossed a line, the consequence was simple: they lost an audience.
This shifted power away from loud aggressors and toward ordinary participants. Norms were reinforced socially rather than through constant moderation intervention.
Importantly, this did not require consensus. Different communities developed different standards, and that diversity was tolerated rather than flattened.
Marginalized Users Set the Pace
On many platforms, marginalized users are forced to adapt to hostile norms or leave. On Bluesky, they were able to help define the environment instead.
Queer users, in particular, did not need to over-explain, self-police, or perform respectability to be heard. Because harassment tools were limited, participation felt safer. That safety allowed norms to coalesce around mutual recognition rather than constant defense.
Culture followed presence.
Why This Was Not an Accident
Organic norms only form when platforms resist the urge to micromanage behavior for public relations reasons. Bluesky accepted ambiguity. It allowed mistakes to happen at small scales instead of preventing them through heavy-handed control.
That patience paid off.
The result was not perfection. It was coherence.
Community norms on Bluesky did not emerge because users were better people. They emerged because the platform stopped sabotaging them.
For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived as part of the ongoing WPS News Monthly Brief Series available through Amazon.
References (APA)
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.
#BlueSky #communityNorms #digitalCommunities #onlineCulture #platformGovernance #queerSafetyOnline #socialMediaDesign
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet. Yale University Press.
Phillips, W., & Milner, R. (2017). The Ambivalent Internet. Polity Press.
Baym, N. (2015). Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Polity Press. -
DMCA Guide for Fediverse
EFF’s new Fediverse DMCA guide shows Mastodon and Bluesky hosts how to cut copyright risk, protect users, and keep decentralised spaces online. -
Trust and safety used to be seen as the internet’s cleanup crew.
After my conversation with Yoel Roth, SVP & Head of Trust & Safety at Match Group, I think that framing is outdated.
Watch the full YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/cj577gj8mzg
The better framing: trust and safety is now platform governance.
Full conversation with Yoel Roth on Analyse Podcast.
#TrustAndSafety #AIGovernance #PlatformGovernance #DigitalTrust #AnalysePodcast
-
Fediverse explained – powerful shift in control over social media and data
Fediverse explained reveals how decentralized social media gives users control over data, privacy, and speech beyond corporate platformshttps://thedemocracyadvocate.com/news-to-know/tech-news/fediverse-explained/
-
And what about X (formerly Twitter)?
Since Musk took over, studies show X now has a higher concentration of misinformation than Facebook, just lower total volume due to a smaller user base.
Facebook still "wins" for overall harm, but TikTok is the most concerning rising threat.
Moderation matters. Algorithms amplify. And platform design isn't neutral.
#Misinformation #SocialMedia #TechPolicy #PlatformGovernance #digizenLK
-
And what about X (formerly Twitter)?
Since Musk took over, studies show X now has a higher concentration of misinformation than Facebook, just lower total volume due to a smaller user base.
Facebook still "wins" for overall harm, but TikTok is the most concerning rising threat.
Moderation matters. Algorithms amplify. And platform design isn't neutral.
#Misinformation #SocialMedia #TechPolicy #PlatformGovernance #digizenLK
-
CW: Tech Policy / Platform Safety
‘It started with a tipoff’: how a Guardian investigation exposed child sex trafficking on Facebook and Instagram
#OnlineSafety #PlatformGovernance #DigitalRights #TechPolicy #Meta
-
🗣️⚖️ Who gets heard in digital governance?
Rachel Griffin & Mateus Correia de Carvalho explore how civil society shapes EU platform rules 🇪🇺 – and why some voices are left out.
Her work highlights inequalities in resources 💸, access 🏛️, and recognition 👁️ that shape how risks are defined and governed.
🔗 https://dsa-observatory.eu/2026/02/17/who-speaks-and-who-is-heard/
#EURegulation #DigitalJustice #PlatformGovernance #ResponsibleAI #RCTrust -
Die EU zwingt X erstmals unter dem Digital Services Act zu Änderungen – inklusive 120 Mio. € Strafe und Anpassungen beim „Verifizierungs“-System. Ein wichtiger Präzedenzfall.
Aber: Solange Plattformen Verifikation, Werbungstransparenz und Datenzugang erst nach Druck korrigieren, zeigt das auch, wie schwach Governance ohne Durchsetzung bleibt. Regulierung wirkt – aber nur, wenn sie tatsächlich angewendet wird. -
Die EU zwingt X erstmals unter dem Digital Services Act zu Änderungen – inklusive 120 Mio. € Strafe und Anpassungen beim „Verifizierungs“-System. Ein wichtiger Präzedenzfall.
Aber: Solange Plattformen Verifikation, Werbungstransparenz und Datenzugang erst nach Druck korrigieren, zeigt das auch, wie schwach Governance ohne Durchsetzung bleibt. Regulierung wirkt – aber nur, wenn sie tatsächlich angewendet wird. -
🤣 Microsoft is going all-in with its automated moderation tools, blocking Discord messages just for saying "MicroSlop." The meme, popular among annoyed devs to poke fun at buggy or bloated software, is now being flagged by Microsoft’s AI as "hate speech."
Honestly, this is what happens when a company lets algorithms handle "cultural sensitivity" on autopilot. Sure, technically "slop" can be an insult, but the AI totally misses the inside joke that devs are making. Instead of listening to what people are actually saying about their products, Microsoft just turbocharged the meme, and now it’s guaranteed to go viral even faster. Classic Streisand Effect.
🧠 Automated moderation keeps tripping over inside jokes and creative digs.
⚡ The AI just can’t tell the difference between an honest rant and real harassment.
🎓 Now everyone’s getting clever with new euphemisms to dodge the ban.
🔍 This move accidentally brought gamers and devs together; everyone’s roasting Microsoft now.https://www.fastcompany.com/91501766/microsoft-discord-microslop-banned-viral-phenomenon
#AIModeration #PlatformGovernance #TechCulture #Microsoft #MicroSlop #Censorship #Freedom #Softare #Discord -
🤣 Microsoft is going all-in with its automated moderation tools, blocking Discord messages just for saying "MicroSlop." The meme, popular among annoyed devs to poke fun at buggy or bloated software, is now being flagged by Microsoft’s AI as "hate speech."
Honestly, this is what happens when a company lets algorithms handle "cultural sensitivity" on autopilot. Sure, technically "slop" can be an insult, but the AI totally misses the inside joke that devs are making. Instead of listening to what people are actually saying about their products, Microsoft just turbocharged the meme, and now it’s guaranteed to go viral even faster. Classic Streisand Effect.
🧠 Automated moderation keeps tripping over inside jokes and creative digs.
⚡ The AI just can’t tell the difference between an honest rant and real harassment.
🎓 Now everyone’s getting clever with new euphemisms to dodge the ban.
🔍 This move accidentally brought gamers and devs together; everyone’s roasting Microsoft now.https://www.fastcompany.com/91501766/microsoft-discord-microslop-banned-viral-phenomenon
#AIModeration #PlatformGovernance #TechCulture #Microsoft #MicroSlop #Censorship #Freedom #Softare #Discord -
"While the DSA has created an obligation for platforms to identify and mitigate systemic risks in Europe, the first two years of risk assessments rely heavily on high-level company descriptions of policies, tools, and user controls. Assessments provide extremely limited detail into whether any of these interventions meaningfully reduce harm, particularly for minors. By contrast, US litigation is surfacing previously unreleased internal platform data, experiments, and deliberations that reveal how platforms internally measure risk and define acceptable trade-offs related to risk, engagement, and revenue. But US litigation is largely reactive and limited to the facts of each specific case.
For example, internal company data released in US litigation shows that key safety mitigations – including screentime management tools, take a break reminders, parental controls, among others – suffer from extremely low adoption rates, often below 2% of minor users. Internal documents also suggest the design of these features may undermine effectiveness: TikTok leadership initially imposed “guardrail” metrics requiring that new screentime tools reduce usage by no more than 5%, while Meta’s internal projections accurately predicted that 99% of teens would not use optional opt-in take a break features.
The evidence emerging from DSA systemic risk assessments and US platform litigation underscores a central gap in current approaches to platform governance: risks are increasingly well-described, but mitigations are rarely communicated using rigorous, outcome-oriented data and evidence."
#SocialMedia #EU #USA #DSA #TikTok #Instagram #Algorithms #Meta #Facebook #PlatformGovernance #MentalHealth
-
"While the DSA has created an obligation for platforms to identify and mitigate systemic risks in Europe, the first two years of risk assessments rely heavily on high-level company descriptions of policies, tools, and user controls. Assessments provide extremely limited detail into whether any of these interventions meaningfully reduce harm, particularly for minors. By contrast, US litigation is surfacing previously unreleased internal platform data, experiments, and deliberations that reveal how platforms internally measure risk and define acceptable trade-offs related to risk, engagement, and revenue. But US litigation is largely reactive and limited to the facts of each specific case.
For example, internal company data released in US litigation shows that key safety mitigations – including screentime management tools, take a break reminders, parental controls, among others – suffer from extremely low adoption rates, often below 2% of minor users. Internal documents also suggest the design of these features may undermine effectiveness: TikTok leadership initially imposed “guardrail” metrics requiring that new screentime tools reduce usage by no more than 5%, while Meta’s internal projections accurately predicted that 99% of teens would not use optional opt-in take a break features.
The evidence emerging from DSA systemic risk assessments and US platform litigation underscores a central gap in current approaches to platform governance: risks are increasingly well-described, but mitigations are rarely communicated using rigorous, outcome-oriented data and evidence."
#SocialMedia #EU #USA #DSA #TikTok #Instagram #Algorithms #Meta #Facebook #PlatformGovernance #MentalHealth
-
Spain’s response to Telegram founder Pavel Durov’s mass message underscores a growing policy-security intersection.
Governments argue that platform scale and minimal moderation architectures can enable misuse, while platform leaders warn that expanded liability and age verification may weaken privacy, anonymity, and open discourse. Similar regulatory pressure is emerging across Europe and other regions.
For security professionals, the issue raises questions around governance, identity systems, moderation tooling, and compliance design.
How can platforms improve harm reduction without introducing systemic privacy risks?
Share insights and follow @technadu for grounded coverage at the intersection of security and policy.
#Infosec #PlatformGovernance #OnlineSafety #DigitalPolicy #TechNadu #PrivacyEngineering #CyberRisk
-
It’s out! 🎉 My new paper is published.
I examine how Instagram users practice digital vigilantism to fight botting & porn bots — taking authenticity governance into their own hands. The study highlights user-driven surveillance and platform power asymmetries.
Part of the special issue “Digital Platforms and Agency” in Lateral (CSA), edited by Reed van Schenck & Elaine Venter.
#PlatformGovernance #DigitalCulture #InternetStudies #culturalstudies
-
It’s out! 🎉 My new paper is published.
I examine how Instagram users practice digital vigilantism to fight botting & porn bots — taking authenticity governance into their own hands. The study highlights user-driven surveillance and platform power asymmetries.
Part of the special issue “Digital Platforms and Agency” in Lateral (CSA), edited by Reed van Schenck & Elaine Venter.
#PlatformGovernance #DigitalCulture #InternetStudies #culturalstudies
-
I’ve published a pre-print on Zenodo arguing that large digital platforms now function as infrastructural religions — governing visibility, legitimacy, belonging, and exclusion while claiming neutrality.
The paper introduces concepts including platform orthodoxy, algorithmic nationalism, and geo-digital sovereignty to examine how authority has migrated into infrastructure and code.
-
Our recent blog examines how these measures operated in practice, looking at the legal framework under the IT Act, the role of platform geo-blocking, and the use of executive advisories and criminal law during crisis situations.
Read here: https://sflc.in/content-blocking-and-censorship-during-pahalgam-attack/ #ContentBlocking #DigitalGovernance #InternetRegulation #Section69A #PlatformGovernance #FreedomOfExpression #MediaFreedom 13m
-
Our recent blog examines how these measures operated in practice, looking at the legal framework under the IT Act, the role of platform geo-blocking, and the use of executive advisories and criminal law during crisis situations.
Read here: https://sflc.in/content-blocking-and-censorship-during-pahalgam-attack/ #ContentBlocking #DigitalGovernance #InternetRegulation #Section69A #PlatformGovernance #FreedomOfExpression #MediaFreedom 13m
-
YouTube has expanded its parental control framework, introducing new tools that allow parents to limit or fully block Shorts access for children and teens.
Key additions include:
• Shorts-specific time limits
• Bedtime and break reminders
• Improved account switching for supervised profiles
• Continued use of age-estimation technologyWhile primarily a safety and well-being update, these changes also reflect how platforms are responding to growing regulatory and societal pressure around youth online exposure.
How effective do you think technical controls are compared to policy, education, and oversight?
Share your view and follow @technadu for clear, unbiased tech reporting.
#OnlineSafety #PlatformGovernance #DigitalWellbeing #ParentalControls #TechPolicy #YouthSafety #YouTube
-
Ofcom has initiated a formal investigation into X to determine whether its AI chatbot safeguards meet the UK Online Safety Act requirements, following reports of AI-generated sexualized images, including minors.
The case sits at the intersection of:
• AI governance
• platform trust & safety
• regulatory enforcement timelinesIt underscores the challenge of enforcing safety controls on rapidly evolving generative systems.
How should risk-based enforcement adapt for AI-driven platforms?Source: https://therecord.media/uk-launches-formal-investigation-x-grok-images
Share your insights and follow TechNadu for sober, non-alarmist coverage.
#AISecurity #TrustAndSafety #PlatformGovernance #OnlineSafety #CyberPolicy
-
⚖️🇪🇺 New at RC Trust since January 2026: Rachel Griffin!
As a Postdoctoral Researcher, Rachel works on EU platform regulation and questions of structural injustice – from online violence and algorithmic bias to the political power of large tech platforms. Her research also examines how “risk” is defined and governed in digital regulation.
At RC Trust, she’s expanding this work to AI regulation, collaborating across disciplines.
#EURegulation #PlatformGovernance #DigitalJustice #ResponsibleAI
-
One year ago Meta reversed its political content reduction policy. New research on 2.5M Facebook posts from Italian MPs:
72% reach reduction for parliamentarians
Effects detected 10 months BEFORE Meta's "global rollout"
Extremists gained reach (+14%) while elected officials lost it🔗 https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8dqag_v2
#Meta #Facebook #DSA #PlatformGovernance #Transparency -
One year ago Meta reversed its political content reduction policy. New research on 2.5M Facebook posts from Italian MPs:
72% reach reduction for parliamentarians
Effects detected 10 months BEFORE Meta's "global rollout"
Extremists gained reach (+14%) while elected officials lost it🔗 https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8dqag_v2
#Meta #Facebook #DSA #PlatformGovernance #Transparency -
Adam Mosseri (Instagram) argumentiert, dass KI-Labels langfristig an Wirksamkeit verlieren werden, weil KI-generierte Fälschungen immer perfekter werden. Praktischer sei es daher, reale Medien kryptografisch zu fingerprinten – etwa direkt bei der Aufnahme –, statt fortlaufend synthetische Inhalte zu jagen. Ein bemerkenswerter Perspektivwechsel von der Detektion des Falschen zur Verifikation des Echten.
#AIandMedia #ContentAuthenticity #DigitalTrust #PlatformGovernance
https://www.engadget.com/social-media/instagram-chief-ai-is-so-ubiquitous-it-will-be-more-practical-to-fingerprint-real-media-than-fake-media-202620080.html -
Adam Mosseri (Instagram) argumentiert, dass KI-Labels langfristig an Wirksamkeit verlieren werden, weil KI-generierte Fälschungen immer perfekter werden. Praktischer sei es daher, reale Medien kryptografisch zu fingerprinten – etwa direkt bei der Aufnahme –, statt fortlaufend synthetische Inhalte zu jagen. Ein bemerkenswerter Perspektivwechsel von der Detektion des Falschen zur Verifikation des Echten.
#AIandMedia #ContentAuthenticity #DigitalTrust #PlatformGovernance
https://www.engadget.com/social-media/instagram-chief-ai-is-so-ubiquitous-it-will-be-more-practical-to-fingerprint-real-media-than-fake-media-202620080.html -
“Two decades of #BigTech funding for safety science has taught us that the #grantwashing playbook works every time. Internally, corporate leaders pacify passionate employees with token actions that seem consequential. External scientists take the money, get inconclusive results, and lose public trust. Policymakers see what looks like responsible self regulation from a powerful industry and backpedal calls for change.”
https://www.techpolicy.press/beware-of-openais-grantwashing-on-ai-harms/
#research #PlatformGovernance -
“Two decades of #BigTech funding for safety science has taught us that the #grantwashing playbook works every time. Internally, corporate leaders pacify passionate employees with token actions that seem consequential. External scientists take the money, get inconclusive results, and lose public trust. Policymakers see what looks like responsible self regulation from a powerful industry and backpedal calls for change.”
https://www.techpolicy.press/beware-of-openais-grantwashing-on-ai-harms/
#research #PlatformGovernance -
The EU has fined X €120M under the Digital Services Act for transparency-related violations, including gaps in political ad repositories and restrictions on researcher access. X has stated it disagrees with the decision.
For the security community, this raises important questions about:
• the role of data access in identifying influence operations
• how platforms can support threat research at scale
• how regulatory frameworks may evolve across regionsThoughts on how transparency and researcher access should be structured for large platforms?
Source: https://therecord.media/eu-fines-x-under-digital-services-act-disinformation-transparecy-rules
💬 Join the conversation
🔁 Boost & Follow for more neutral cybersecurity insights#Infosec #CyberSecurity #DSA #Transparency #PlatformGovernance #ThreatResearch #DigitalPolicy #OnlineSafety #Disinformation #TechRegulation
-
🤝🌎 Excited to kick off the third installment of #Digimeet today, bringing together around 80 digital researchers from 16 countries across the EU, UK, South America, the US & India!
Our focus this year is a deep dive into #PlatformGovernance & #Power. We'll be exploring the latest global developments, zeroing in on the underlying power dynamics, societal implications, and technological advancements shaping policy discourse today.
#DigitalResearch #PlatformRegulation #TechPolicy
@bidt @CAISnrw -
>> Call for applications: School on Platform Governance to be held in Bangkok, Thailand (28-31 July, 2025).
---> Participants will engage with experts and practitioners currently working on platform and tech accountability at the regional and international level.
https://www.apc.org/en/news/call-applications-school-platform-governance
-
>> Call for applications: School on Platform Governance to be held in Bangkok, Thailand (28-31 July, 2025).
---> Participants will engage with experts and practitioners currently working on platform and tech accountability at the regional and international level.
https://www.apc.org/en/news/call-applications-school-platform-governance
